Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

plus.flux.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 410 posts

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#391

Post by sorrynorry22 »

Arnt wrote: post #341
FreeTrade wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decentralization problem in BlueSky is not filtering out users, but rather hearing from users that BlueSky has decided to filter out.

Most recently in my case: "$3.5 million scam victims compensation fund". People who want me to hear them belong to one of two groups: I want that, or I don't. The second group may be expected to be overwhelmingly spammers and scammers, with a smattering of tankies and kooks, because the ability to reach the largest possible audience is attractive to them, right? So what you think, should each recipient maintain his/h…

[dead]

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#392

Post by astrange »

simianwords wrote: post #386
simianwords wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe this is true. The sort of people to use this slur are the ones supporting DEI and BLM.

i tried searching for clanker in bluesky and got loads and loads of results. they really love the word there. and they are absolutely the type of people to support DEI and BLM.

Well that's easy, you just take whichever position you want on the topic and then say everyone who disagrees with you is white.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#393

Post by nomel »

dlivingston wrote: post #180
astrange wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cost $44B to get him unbanned so I think that's actually pretty good evidence it worked. > One of these people now sits in the White House, in part because of backlash to the deplatforming of him and others with similar politics. It's not because of anything. Cause and effect doesn't apply to the brain of the median American voter - they live in a world of pure imagination. You could say they thought prices would…

> It cost $44B to get him unbanned so I think that's actually pretty good evidence it worked. Good evidence that it worked to do what? Limit his influence and popularity? This is false. His unbanning had little effect besides the right wing giving Musk brownie points, but the initial ban fueled grievance politics and became a huge rallying cry for the right. It was an extraordinary backfire. > It's not because of any…

> and it's interesting to see how rapidly it fluctuates up and down.

I've noticed there are usually wild swings depending on the active timezone. It would be interesting to try to extract a rough sentiment of each longitude, by looking at the timing.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#394

Post by groundzeros2015 »

extraduder_ire wrote: post #356
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter banned the president of the United States in 2020.

I thought that was 2021. Did it happen earlier too?

Correct. Got me by a month.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#395

Post by Karrot_Kream »

extraduder_ire wrote: post #351
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like grasping at a boogeyman web3 straw to make a point. Concretely, Bluesky has an AppView that takes posts from relays and PDSes, subscribes to moderation labelers, filters posts that have labels which have certain labels, then displays them in the browser. Blacksky is the first independent implementation of relays and other large components of the system. The default Bluesky AppView subscribes to the Blues…

Moderation labels are applied at the client level, not at appview level. Forks of the official client (e.g. deer.social) allow you to completely remove the official moderation labeller.

Yes. Sorry, I was imprecise in my explanation.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#396

Post by incompatible »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #276

I don't understand how the removing of right wing users is described as a necessary good to create a safe and inclusive space, while the removal of left wing users is decried as censorship. If you dismiss people who have genuine concerns about things as bigoted, you yourself are being bigoted! It is as though people don't understand the definition of the word.

"people who have genuine concerns about things", things like women, non-whites, LGBTIQ, especially trans, atheists, scientists, anti-fascists, even people who don't follow the MAGA party line, such as idolizing Charley Kirk, the list goes on. "Genuine concerns" which are expressed as undisguised or thinly disguised death threats in some cases.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#397

Post by simianwords »

astrange wrote: post #392
simianwords wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i tried searching for clanker in bluesky and got loads and loads of results. they really love the word there. and they are absolutely the type of people to support DEI and BLM.

Well that's easy, you just take whichever position you want on the topic and then say everyone who disagrees with you is white.

i dont know what you mean here

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#398

Post by LeroyRaz »

incompatible wrote: post #396
LeroyRaz wrote: post #276

I don't understand how the removing of right wing users is described as a necessary good to create a safe and inclusive space, while the removal of left wing users is decried as censorship. If you dismiss people who have genuine concerns about things as bigoted, you yourself are being bigoted! It is as though people don't understand the definition of the word.

"people who have genuine concerns about things", things like women, non-whites, LGBTIQ, especially trans, atheists, scientists, anti-fascists, even people who don't follow the MAGA party line, such as idolizing Charley Kirk, the list goes on. "Genuine concerns" which are expressed as undisguised or thinly disguised death threats in some cases.

To take the example of trans: yes. Multiple different groups have genuine concerns about trans issues. For example, you have trans people wanting to be respected and not victimized, you have women who fear men being in their spaces, you have parents who fear their children being harmed and encouraged to transition, you have female athletes concerned about unfair competition from people who went through male puberty, etc... None of these groups innately hate each other or are bigoted, they just have different opinions on what the best society should be like as shaped by their own experiences.

And all of these groups have a point. Obviously you do get examples of trans people being victimized, you do get examples of children regretting transitioning, you do get examples of unfair athletic competition, etc... It is a complete conspiracy theory to label all of the groups as made of hateful fake news spreading bigots. They are all just human beings, muddling through the world!

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#399

Post by afiori »

mariusor wrote: post #337
afiori wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is completely not decentralized at the user level (especially IIUC mastodon users cannot export/import their data) Bluesky is trying to build something as decentralized as email where still few providers dominate the market and most use few common ip/domain blacklists. Yet it is one of the most decentralized protocols on the internet. I a not saying Bluesky is a masterpiece but I think it is naive to hold it…

I'm not sure I can follow your logic of having smaller communities not being decentralized "at user level" whatever you mean by that. And you hyperfocus on Mastodon - which granted is correct as we're talking about mass adoption and where average users might go - but it is not the only project in the fediverse which is one of the main advantages over BlueSky. (And Mastodon does offer account move between instances, d…

> I'm not sure I can follow your logic of having smaller communities not being decentralized "at user level" whatever you mean by that.

I am making a parallel to how email works. With my own domain I can configure my DNS to use various different email providers and move however I like.

This is both decentralized and federated.

I can also use someone else's domain like gmail.com but then I lose portability for ease of use.

This is federated but not centralized.

Or I can host my own email server on my own domain and deal with spam fileters, bots, etc. directly

This is decentralized but less federated.

Mastodon is federated between instances but each instance is entirely centralized. Even account portability requires admin consent IIRC.

Bluesky is trying to create a space where users can own their own data like you can own your email AND aiming for widespread adoption.

I am not particularly focused on Mastodon, it is just the only part of the fediverse with a modicum of adoption.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#400

Post by incompatible »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #398
incompatible wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"people who have genuine concerns about things", things like women, non-whites, LGBTIQ, especially trans, atheists, scientists, anti-fascists, even people who don't follow the MAGA party line, such as idolizing Charley Kirk, the list goes on. "Genuine concerns" which are expressed as undisguised or thinly disguised death threats in some cases.

To take the example of trans: yes. Multiple different groups have genuine concerns about trans issues. For example, you have trans people wanting to be respected and not victimized, you have women who fear men being in their spaces, you have parents who fear their children being harmed and encouraged to transition, you have female athletes concerned about unfair competition from people who went through male puberty,…

This is always how it goes, first it's just "genuine concerns", and soon enough you've designated a group who are to be the scapegoats with no right to live their own lives as they see fit.
Post reply on HN